4 ms·
This is interesting because it starts to peel another layer of the problem. Yes there are still cues that can give away gender, but this seems another step clos
by hharnisch 10y ago
This is interesting because it starts to peel another layer of the problem. Yes there are still cues that can give away gender, but this seems another step closer to making the interview process a science. The next logical question from here is "why are women more likely to quit after 1-2 bad interviews".
- jbmorgado 10y agoI don't think you understood the article. The conclusion is that there is no problem. This bias against woman in IT interviews people keep talking about, doesn't actually exist according to the study.
- imh 10y agoThis misunderstanding is kind of the core breakdown in these conversations. People don't agree on what the problem is. Is the issue about equal pay, or about equal pay for equal work? In hiring terms, is it about equal hiring or equal hiring for equal ability? If we don't have equal pay for equal work (and equivalent skill, etc), I think we can agree that's unfair and a problem. But if we do have equal pay for equal work, but still don't have equal pay, then I'd say we may still have a problem. Why aren't women making the same work decisions as men? If social pressure is keeping women from doing equal work, that's bad. If social pressure is forcing men to make shittier sacrifices for pay, that's bad. In the article linked, women churn more. That's probably bad. If there's inequality without unequal pay or unequal hiring, then the problem isn't the fault of the firms, but it's still a problem.